Sorting by

×
BEM-PT USTJ delivers a clarification on three points raised by the USTJ rector following a student protest that ended in clashes on campus on Wednesday, 30 September 2026 – Jubi/Silpester Kasipka

Students who raised Morning Star flag are USTJ students : BEM

Jayapura, Jubi – The Student Executive Council of the University of Science and Technology Jayapura (BEM USTJ) says the three people who raised the Morning Star flag during a protest on the university campus on 30 September 2-26 are USTJ students.

The statement contradicts an earlier claim by the university rector that the three people who raised the flag during a protest marking the 64th anniversary of the 1962 New York Agreement, or Rome Agreement, were not USTJ students.

USTJ Student Vice President Luis Kitok Kasipka said information gathered by BEM USTJ indicated that the three people detained by police following the protest were active students at the university.

RelatedPosts

He said their student status should be verified through academic records and accountable verification procedures.

BEM USTJ has called on the university administration to provide an explanation based on verifiable facts and data. It also rejected claims that the three were outsiders or members of external organization who had entered the campus.

“Calling them outsiders or members of external organisations who entered the campus needs to be clarified and supported by clear evidence,” Kasipka said at press conference at the BEM USTJ Secretatiat in Padang Bulan, Abepura District, Jayapura, Papua, on Monday (06/10/2026).

Kasipka said any claims about the involvement of outside organisations should be based on verifiable information rather than assumptions or unilateral assessments.

BEM USTJ also rejected claims that it agreed with the rector’s position on the matter.

Kasipka said there had been no discussion, consultation or formal agreement between the rector and BEM USTJ before the statement that the student organisation shared was made public.

“Such a statement cannot be regarded as representing the official position of BEM USTJ,” he said.

He said BEM USTJ had its own internal procedures for determining the organisation’s position and that any statement made on their behalf must be communicated and confirmed by BEM USTJ first.

BEM USTJ member Rudi Jafata said the issue should be resolved through communication and dialogue between students and the university administration.

Differences of opinion on campus, he said, should not immediately result in students being stigmatised.

“The university is an academic space that should allow students to express their views and discuss various issues openly and responsibly,” Jafata said.

BEM USTJ said the 30 September protest was held to commemorate the 64th anniversary of the 1692 New York Agreement.

The student organisation said universities should provide space for students to study, examine, discuss and debate different historical perpectoves critically, openly and responsibly.

It also said freedom of expression is a constitutional right, referring to Article 28E(3) of the 1945 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of association, assembly and expression.

BEM USTJ also cited Law No.9 of 1998 on Freedom of Expression in Public and Law No,12 of 2012 on Higher Education, which regulate academic freedom and academic speech.

The organisation said that dialogue with a fair and transparent procedures should be addressed if there are any violations of university regulations alleged.

Regarding the three students detained by police, BEM USTJ called on the university administration to coordinate with law enforcement and other relevant parties to ensure their rights, safety and fair treatment.

BEM USTJ identified the three detained students as:

  • Apniel Jagani (A.J), a third-semester Information System student;
  • Inios Enembe (M.E), a fifth-semester Government Studies student who was identified as the protest’s field coordinator; and
  • Mikael Obaipa (M.O), a fifth-semester International Relations student who was identified as the person responsible for the protest. (*)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You might also like